| Dec. 30th, 2004 @ 10:06 am Who's on first? |
|---|
Current Mood: patriotic
Current Music: Hendrix National Anthem
Well, ain't it all so interesting. Dino Rossi is now calling on Christine Gregoire to request a new election because "The uncertainty surrounding this election process isn’t just bad for you and me – it is bad for the entire state. People need to know for sure that the next governor actually won the election."
Of course, when he was ahead by only 42 votes, well within statistical uncertainty and down from his original 100+ from the first machine recount, he was calling for Gregoire's concession. Now that he is on the other side of the vote, he wants a do-over. I'd tell this to Rossi directly, but he doesn't seem to have an email or fax number anymore. I'm so glad he wants to be in touch with his constituency.
To top it off, the re-elected, Republican Secretary of State (Reid) says that a revote is not called for and would not be a good thing.
Mind you, as with the Pres election, there are no clear winners here. A closely divided state with a point spread of .0000379 percent (3.79 x10(-5)) assuming I did my math right.
Am I happier that Gregoire is the purported winner at this point? Yes. Would I have accepted Rossi if this last, legal recount went his way? Grudgingly and with a very sour taste about elections in general, I must admit. But at this point, we need a governor and not a revote.
What we all need is a better voting system and clearer election rules that keep special interest money and attack ads out of it and the national party money away from local elections. What the RNC did to our elections in this state was revolting. I didn't see the same from the DNC, but if I'm wrong there, shame on them too.
I can only hope that with the investigations in Ohio and into the electronic and disenfranchisement investigations that something may just change by the next election. If we do not live with hope (and loud voices) we cede our control to those who've made a business of government. And *that* would be the most disheartening thing of all.
Government is not a business, it is a service. It should be a fiscally responsible service, yes, but a service nonetheless. Running it like a business, and being only worried about the shareholders and those in power (corporations and elected officials: those who benefit directly) at the expensive of the consumer (the rest of us) is just the wrong way to approach it all. It loses sight of why government exists in the first place: as a public trust.
Government in a nation this large is a necessary evil, but it doesn't have to be bad option. It certainly could be a better representative of the populace as a whole and a better face as a representative to the world than we've seen in recent memory. |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
hgross's journal
![[info]](http://stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}